Talk:Pederasty in the Middle East and Central Asia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

I am going to remove the Quranic verse reference since it is incorrect 50:24 indicates Surat Qaf Aya 24. Which approximates the meaning of sending stubborn non believer to hell. Check it yourself if you dont beleive me. I checked with other articles to see if Sura:Aya is how quran is referenced and it seems to be so.

Thank you for picking up the typo. It has been corrected and additional examples provided. Haiduc 03:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

On the end of section Central Asia, we find [1], but I cannot find the footnote or reference it indicats. --Kotoito 18:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. Haiduc 01:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding. In chapter "Modern ...", 2nd Paragraph, what means [16][1] ?Kotoito 16:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hafez' divan

Hafez does not belong here? The Persians seem to think otherwise. Check this out:

What choices have I, if I should not fall in love with that child? / Mother Time does not possess a better son (Del beda@n rud-e gera@mi ±ekonam gar nadaham / Ma@dar-e dahr nada@rad pesar-i behtar az in; Hafez, Diva@n, no. 396).
My sweetheart is a beauty and a child, and I fear that in play one day / He will kill me miserably and he will not be accountable according to the holy law (Delbaram æa@hed o tÂefl ast o be ba@zi ruzi / Bekoæad za@ram o dar æar¿ naba@æad gonahaæ).
I have a fourteen year old idol, sweet and nimble / For whom the full moon is a willing slave (Ùa@rdah-sa@la boti ±a@bok o æirin da@ram / Ke be ja@n háalqa be guæ ast mah-e ±a@rdahaæ).
His sweet lips have (still) the scent of milk / Even though the demeanor of his dark eyes drips blood (Bu-ye æir az lab-e ham±on æekaraæ mia@yad / Gar±e kòun mi±ekad az æiva-ye ±aæm-e siahaæ; Hafez, Diva@n, no. 284.)

And about the Magian baccha:

If the wine-serving mo@g@-ba±a would shine in this way / I will make a broom of my eyelashes to sweep the entrance of the tavern. (Gar ±onin jelwa konad mo@g@-ba±a-ye ba@da foruæ / kòa@krub-e dar-e meykòa@na konam mo‘ga@n ra@; Hafez, Diva@n, no. 9).

I am sure much more can be found. Haiduc 12:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the thing with Persian poetry is that it is literally a world unto itself, and Western interpretations of such poetry are bound to have a different opinion than the traditional Persian interpretations (which have been established for many centuries). As was the case with Abbasi, I disagree with adding Hafez and Saadi unless their poetry is explicitly identified as "pederastic" by some author or scholar. By the way, I seriously think there needs to be more NPOVing of this article - words like "notoriety" by themselves (that is, not derived from any specific quote) and so forth are rather POV, don't you think?
Also, I think there needs to be far more historical context placed here or in the main pederasty article, or even both. In terms of psychology and the social dynamic - how and why it occurred, and so on and so forth. SouthernComfort 02:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Historical context would be great, and anything you can add is more than welcome. As for traditional Persian interpretations, there were many and they disagreed, as I am sure you know far better than I. This link is quite rich in information, from the Encyclopaedia Iranica: [1]
As for the adjectives being over the top, I have no objections to judicious editing (as yours has mostly been). I still object to your interpretation of the kocek fresco at Chehel Soutun, but we'll never agree on everything. Haiduc 02:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, you're the expert regarding this topic, so I hope you can expand on this issue of historical context and such. Unfortunately, Classical Studies programs in universities generally restrict themselves to the ancient Greeks and Romans, and thus any academic study of pederasty in the Middle East and Central Asia is problematic. I'm not particularly interested in this subject matter, mind you, but I would be interested in learning more about of how this practice came about and how it evolved and why exactly it was commonplace in ancient (and essentially traditionalistic) cultures and societies. SouthernComfort 03:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sa'adi

Please see Sa'adi. Haiduc 02:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Does the author you cite (Asian Homosexuality) actually refer to "sacred pederasty" in reference to Saadi's poetry? SouthernComfort 03:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, what exactly does the author say? Whatever he has written, it must have been stated in some context. SouthernComfort 03:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Try this link [2] Haiduc 03:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

on Page 66: "... same dilemma, English translators even in the tamer episodes of the "Gulistan" turn boys into girls and change anecdotes about pederasty into tales of heterosexual Iove.15 Perhaps Sa'di's contemporaries accepted the pornographic with the religious as a reflection of the contrary ..." 5. on Page 66: "... Boys The deterioration of the Iranian woman's social status in Islamic Iran and the moral laxity encouraged by the open pederasty of the Turkish Ghaznavid, Seljuq, and Khwarazmshahian rulers promoted the love of boys in Iran, so that in much of ..." 6. on Page 66: "... the less fortunate made do with less charming male prostitutes found in the seedy parts of town. Sa'di's-works suggest that pederasty was common and generally tolerated. As mentioned earlier, in most love poems of Saldi the beloved's gender is not specified, ..." 8. on Page 66: "... of women in the bulk of the anecdotes. The Social Acceptability of the Love of Boys Some medieval sources treat pederasty as a normal and acceptable practice, while others condemn it as being immoral and depraved. Saldi himself reflects this ambivalence. ..." 9. on Page 66: "... and tend to emphasize the physical beauty of the youth, not his role in the homosexual act. Social disapproval of pederasty is reflected in derogatory terms like amrad and mukhannas (catamite).104 Amrad (beardless) also means effeminate and passive (maf'ul,. the done). ..."

Unfortunately I cannot view the full page because I have never purchased anything from Amazon. But it seems to me that the bit you have included on Saadi's article needs to be placed into context - that is, it needs to be attributed to an author as his opinion, just as has been done with Crompton regarding Abbasi. SouthernComfort 03:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Haiduc, the way you are going about things, you are going to connect every single Persian poet to pederasty. This is stretching things a bit far, I have to tell you. SouthernComfort 03:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
We are all doing the same research and using the same sources. Unfortunately we are also all confronting the same obstacles. Let's let the dust settle tonight and see where this all goes. Haiduc 04:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
As long as there is a source, and as long as the edits identify that it is only the opinion of the source(s) in question, there won't be much of a dispute. Vast generalizations and so forth, I will oppose since there there so few modern sources regarding this topic. The modern Western interpretation is one interpretation, and it has to be made clear as such. This is what I am stressing and concerned about. SouthernComfort 04:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
You claim that "there so few modern sources regarding this topic" but I have a suspicion that you simply have not familiarized yourself with the material. You might have had an argument in the 1950's (though as early as 1955 Hellmut Ritter discussed this: "Love between men and youths as a community-building bond of sociological and pedagogical significance can be recognized in the Islamic fotowwa-associations [guild association with Sufistic tendencies] and their Anatolian variant, the Akh^-associations, as well as in the dervish orders but, being an offspring of non-Semitic origin, it is not acknowledged as a binding force of this kind, either legally or theoretically. On the contrary, frequently we can only infer that this form of love is present in the associations in question because of the vehement polemic directed against it by the law-revering orthodoxy"), but by now a great deal of material has been written, and not only has the sacred and the secular pederasty of the Middle East been amply studied, but even the (desperate) efforts to sanitize the past have been documented. I welcome your questioning, because in the end it can only result in stronger, better documented articles, but let's not overburden these articles with homoerotic discussions. Haiduc 12:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
As with most other Persian poets of pre-modern times, Saadi writing was inspired by the religious teachings of the Sufi masters, which used the metaphors of divine inebriation and sacred pederasty to express mystical states which could not otherwise be described. This has presented problems for modern Western translators. English translators even in the tamer episodes of the "Gulistan" turn boys into girls and change anecdotes about pederasty into tales of heterosexual love. (Wayne Dynes, Asian Homosexuality p.66) My problem at the moment is this paragraph regarding Saadi, specifically in regards to the issue of "sacred pederasty." Is the source for this Wayne Dynes as well? Amazon did not provide me with an exact quote regarding this topic, so it would be much appreciated if you could clarify if the author is actually claiming this. And if so, it should be presented as his theory and interpretation. Thank you. SouthernComfort 21:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't thank me quite yet. If a zoologist determines that tigers have fangs, and then X is identified as a tiger, please do not expect me to produce another zoologist to confirm that X too has fangs. Sufi thought was expressed in many ways, among which was the doctrine of sacred pederasty, accepted by some and rejected by others, and often expressed in verse. Here is one comment on pederasty in the Gulistan: "Many western translators found tales with homosexual or pederastic themes (chap. 5) especially inappropriate to the objectives of the work, and therefore rendered them into Latin or changed the gender roles." [3] Haiduc 22:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not nitpicking Haiduc. As I've stated before, all I want is for the claim of pederasty (and "sacred pederasty") as it applies to Saadi to be identified as the interpretation of the author cited and worded accordingly (so that it is not stated as fact). That's all I'm asking. SouthernComfort 01:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Southern. It doesn't seem to me quite truthful to say that it is pederastic. It is the scholarship of the author and should be noted as such. As I mentioned on your talk page when I read the comment about Arberry keeping the translation as boy in Ring of the Dove he didn't mention because it was pederastic but because it was out of respect for the girls. gren グレン 20:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Using that reasoning, if we were to discuss tigers and quote some zoological treatise, we would have to talk about "animals the writer thought were tigers," or better yet, "visual objects identified by zoologists as large vertebrates, and labeled 'tigers.'" A great many students of this material are openly and frankly calling it what previous ages were afraid to. Remember, the "love that dare not speak its name?" It was not just the love that dared not, the scholars dared not also. But now there is more freedom to call a thing by its name. Crompton does it, Afary does it, El-Rouayheb does it ... I could go on and on. Let's write about this without seeming ridiculous. We can always identify opposing views, if you can come up with sources. As for the notion that boys were metaphors for women, so as not to offend women, I agree that some material is that. Everybody agrees with that (I just have not gotten around to including it in the article). It is just that it is only ONE of the aspects of pederastic verse. Then there is that other one, where the object is clearly a boy - still beardless, no longer beardless, etc. Pretty soon you will have us believe that the Arabs and the Persians were courting bearded women. Haiduc 22:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points, Haiduc. We are essentially discussing interpretations - what you or someone else might today view as "pederastic" or even "homoerotic" may have had very different meanings hundreds of years ago. We are discussing poets who were ultimately Muslims, and living in a very different world than the one we live in today. Not everything could be discussed so openly and often certain concepts and issues, particularly those revolving around love and unorthodox mystical concepts, were veiled in different language to be made more acceptable. There is much that has been written in the Persian language concerning these issues, but Western academia has often (but not always) ignored the historical context.
It is much like the magicians and occultists of old, who wrote elaborate and obscure grimoires filled with seemingly hideous and bloody rituals with much in the way of absurdity, when in reality such rituals were only presented that way to scare away the uninitiated - those who were "in the know," so to speak, could read between the lines and understand what these rituals were truly about. The same goes for alchemy, i.e. the concept of turning lead into gold, which in reality was only a metaphorical process for the transformation of the human soul. And again, the same goes for Sufism, the mystical and alchemical traditions of the East. This is why I feel strongly about presenting interpretations as interpretations, precisely because of the subjectivity of these matters. SouthernComfort 11:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good, but does not account for the fact that a number of Iranian historians have themselves denounced the material and the times as morally corrupt, and the mores as introduced by foreign elements (the "French disease" syndrome - illicit sexuality is associated with the "other"). It is a bit much to swallow that you and a handful of others can stand here and declare that a whole tradition is simply the way one looks as things. This is the essence of obfuscation, and can be applied to anything. The point here is not that I have just come up with a homosexual interpretation of material accepted by everyone else as being metaphoric, but rather that after a period of censorship (well documented by many), many scholars are openly discussing the homoerotic aspect of Eastern literature and culture (as well as the Western one, for that matter). And there are elements which resist this view, both "here" and "there." That the material is complex, that the culture was and is different, all this needs to be included, but does not change the reality that the love of boys is the topic of discussion, and the chaste love of boys was thought licit by many if not most. Haiduc 12:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no "obfuscation" here, Haiduc - is that a hint of paranoia that I detect, as you've used that term a few times now. But seriously, the fact remains that there are not many scholars involved in this area, so there is no widespread consensus - only the interpretations of a number of writers and scholars. As I have made clear before, I do not oppose your sources so you don't have to justify them. However, they should not be presented as fact because the matter is entirely subjective. We have no evidence that these poets were this way or that way or whatever - it's something that can never be known. To take a modern example, would you automatically jump to the conclusion that because a certain actor has played a gay role, that this fact means that he is gay? It might be a bad analogy, but I think you know what I am trying to illustrate. Let us for the sake of argument assume that one of these poets did, in fact, intentionally write homoerotic poetry - because of that fact, can you honestly assume that he himself was homosexual, or in the case of poetry that might be interpreted as pederastic, that he might have been a pederast? This goes back to the issue of Reza Abbasi and why I opposed the original category in the first place, suggesting instead "pederastic art." It is far too subjective to make a judgement call upon the figures themselves. The writers and scholars in question are commenting directly upon the works, but cannot use those works to make assumptions about a historical figures sexuality, and even if they were to do so, that would be strictly their own opinion. SouthernComfort 12:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I am at a disadvantage here. I do not know a lot about this subject and I do not know where to look. Searching JSTOR I found an article about love of boys in medieval Hebrew poetry in Spain... but, that is not what I needed. Here is the thing. It very well may have all been pederastic... I do not know and am not sure how to find the literature on it. But, you have not shown that the scholarship is all saying that it was. You say that people were afraid to deal with it as pederastic because of taboos but... to support that you would need to show one of the older Orientalists discussing it as non-pederastic and then a more modern article about how they tempered their interpretations because of prevailing morality. We are just trying to represent the scholarship out there and I am not convinced that is being done... which is what I think Southern and I are trying to say to you. It's not a matter of "my way is right until you cite sources"... that doesn't make it NPOV... What did the older scholarship say? and what are the responses to that? We are not talking about definitive answers here... There is not truth in scholarship, per se, there are different phases. There may have been a phase saying it wasn't pederastic... so talk about them... but a modern phase now says it was and gives responses to the phase before them as to why they were wrong. There may be some neo-older phase people around... etc... we discuss the discourse. It's not that the modern scholarship is true and the older stuff disappears. gren グレン 13:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested page move

This is just a minor quibble, but I think the article should be moved to Pederasty in the Islamic world since "Islamic lands" (at least to me) has an anachronistic ring to it. SouthernComfort 15:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am showing my age, I am afraid. Pederasty in the Islamic world is a good choice. Haiduc 17:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anon on the Qur'an

The following has been removed from article, for possible future integration. Haiduc 19:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

religion should not be blamed for what people do ,people will always be people. one should take time to verify what religious scriptures say.The source of Islam is Quran. so lets see what Quran says about the topic from quran 27:54 AND [thus, too, did We save] Lot, when he said unto his people: [49] �Would you commit this abomination with your eyes open (to its being against all nature)? [50] note 49: The story of Lot and the perverted people of Sodom is mentioned in several places, particularly in 7:80-84, 11:69-83 and 26:60-173 note 50: Thus Zamakhshari and Razi, stressing the principle that a revolt against the God-willed nature of heterosexuality is a revolt against God Himself. 27:55 Must you really approach men with lust instead of women? Nay, but you are people without any awareness (of right and wrong)! 7:80 AND [remember] Lot , [63] when he said unto his people: "Will you commit abominations such as none in all the world has ever done before you? note 63 : The story of Lot , Abraham's nephew (Lut in Arabic), is given in greater detail in 11:69-83.(Quran Ref: 7:80 ) 26:166 keeping yourselves aloof from all the [lawful] spouses whom your Sustainer has created for you? Nay, but you are people who transgress all bounds of what is right! 29:28 And Lot, [too, was inspired by Us] when he said unto his people: �Verily, you commit abominations such as none in all the world has ever committed before you! 29:29 Must you indeed approach men [with lust], and thus cut across the way [of nature]? [24] and must you commit these shameful deeds in your open] assemblies?� But his people�s only answer was, �Bring down upon us God�s chastisement, if thou art a man of truth!� note 24: This particular interpretation of the phrase taqta�un as-sabil is advanced by Baghawi and (on the authority of Al-Hasan) by Zamakhshari; Razi adopts it exclusively and without reservation


[edit] Hadith

What is the source for the Hadiths mentioned: "He who loves and remains chaste and conceals his secret and dies, dies a martyr." & "Beware of beardless youth for they are a greater source of mischief than young maidens." I see the latter has a reference in a book which is not a collection of Hadiths. I had some trouble locating it on a Hadith database. Is it Buhari, Muslim etc? Also, where is the interpretation that love for youth takes you to heaven coming from? That sounds like a pretty outlandish statement.. I have studied Hadiths and the tradition of Muhammad for 12 years and have never come across these statements or anything close to these interpretations. Interesting article though..Fkh82 06:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The hadith is false. Look at where its quoted from, does that sound like a sahih or tafsir to you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.52.52 (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Muslims not allowed to practice Sodomy

We, Muslims are not allowed to have sexual intercourses between the same sex be it Men and men and women with women. It's strictly prohibited. From what I've read on Wikipedia, I've noticed that those people were not in love with the boys rather it was just that those boys became their spiritual guide just as how Mawlana Jalal Ad Din Rumi's teacher was Shams Ad Din and he even wrote Divan-e-Shams in the memory of his Sheikh. Their love for their Sheikh is not the lustful "gay" love as you think. As for the Mahmud of Ghaznavi, he probably reverted when he kept a pious slave, and since that slave was his teacher, he elevated him to a better position.



I am going to remove the quranic ayah. it is absolutely ridiculous to claim that the quran at any place shows homosexual tendancies. any person familiar with the quran will note it forbids homosexuality quite clearly in many different places, especially when refering to the story of prophet lot. and the "hadiths" will also be removed. wikipedia clearly states "encylopedic content must be verifiable", and none of those hadith have any sources, making them invalid.

  • I am sorry but the materials you deleted were valid elements of the article, and properly sourced according to current encyclopaedia compliation practices. The positions described therein may not conform to everyone's view, but as long as the material is properly documented it has academic value. Feel free to contribute sourced material taking issue with those views. Haiduc 02:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am Muslim and I don't think that those verses were being used to show the permissibility of 'homosexual tendencies' (whatever is meant by that) in the Qur'an. Whether one is of the view that sexual relationships with youngon boys is permissible or not does not change the fact that the verses in question refer to the beauty of the young boys in paradise. Whether there will be any sexual activity between the male beleivers of paradise and 'wildanum mukhalladoon' has already between debated amongst the ulema Islamic scholars in the past. Do not be under the false impression that this is a new fad or something.

Plus, I think your use of the word 'homosexual' and 'gay' in reference to this is incorrect. Strange as it may seem, pederasty was common in the Islamic empire, but the adult male who had relations with young boys was never as a result deemed to have compromised his heterosexual status, many of them being married men who also found women attractive. The whole concept of 'homosexuality' and being 'gay' is a new one, invented by the West, as recently as 1800 or so. According to Khaled el-Rouayheb, there is no concept of 'homosexuality' in Islam and that the sexual attraction to young boys is an aspect of 'heterosexuality'.

To the person above: How can you as a muslim say such filth and lies? The Quran makes quite clear the abomination of any sort of homosexual activity, to imply that it is merely sodomy that is forbidden is complete bs. Prime example: the angels who came to warn Lut that Sodom was to be destroyed: did they not come in the form of handsome male youths? And that was what extracted the cities faggots to Lut's house and he declared 'is there not a single right-minded man among you?' This is clear evidence that whether it be boys or men, any sort of same sex erotic practice is regarded as abomination and in a strict islamic society anyone practicing such a thing would no doubt be lynched. PEOPLE! Stop with trying to pervert the purity of Islams's heterosexualness! Youths are admired as physically beautiful because of their vitality, strength etc, not because of any queer interest! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.52.52 (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Sentence addition

"The Sunni also make space for such practices. According to Malik ibn Anas, founder of the Maliki Maddhab, one of the four main Sunni schools of thought, "Having sex with a young man ("amrad," ie. "beardless") is fine for a man who is not married and who is on a trip."<ref>Hesaam Noqaba'i, Hoquq-i Zan, pp. 126-127 (as cited in [http://bahai-library.com/?file=hakim_notes_aqdas_homosexuality the article "Homosexuality in the Kitab-i-Aqdas"</ref>"

Since when is a discussion on a listserv a reliable source? BhaiSaab talk 02:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As I am sure you are aware, it is not the discussion on the listserv that is being cited, but rather the reference that it quotes. You are right, I am not intimately familiar with the Maliki Maddhab, and unfortunately I am unable to back up the reference by citing it (apparently a work on women's rights) directly since I do not have Arabic. Thus your deletion will have to stand, despite my suspicion that it is correct (we have no reason to impugn the integrity of the writer of that article, and the material fits within what is known of pederastic practices in Islamic areas). Also, my apologies for accusing you of vandalism, I overereacted. Haiduc 03:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Even if the quote is in the book, which I doubt, we are depending on that discussion on two accounts: 1. that it is representative of the majority opinion of scholars that are Maliki (which is demonstrably incorrect) and 2. it is the discussion that tells us that it was Malik ibn Anas that said such a thing. Unless someone can provide a source that meets WP:RS for this quote, I strongly disagree with its inclusion. BhaiSaab talk 03:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I searched high and low for the Hadith which this site claimed was said by Imam Malik ibn Anas. Were it true and proven that Imam Malik said such a thing, it certainly would be taken as authentic and reliable. Therefore, those who were aware of it would act on it if they wish, and those who were not aware of it would continue in ignorance. However, I have found no proof whatsoever that this Hadith is attributable to Imam Malik. Not in Hesaami Noqaba'i, Hoquq-i-zan, not Kitab al-Aqdas and not anywhere in the Baha'i library.This begs the question, if the only source for this narration is found among the Baha'i, how is this representative of the Sunnis? Imam Malik is a respected Sunni scholar, on which many Sunni Muslims worldwide respect and follow (his opinions and interpretations of Islamic Jurisprudence). Why would the Baha'is quote a Sunni Imam to prove something which elsewhere you (and they themselves) have shown them not to believe? A Sunni Muslim would not take evidences about his own Imam from a Baha'i - that is nonsensical anyway. And besides all this, I have recently read the book referenced on this site 'Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World 1500-1800' (Khaled el-Rouayheb) and at no point was it ever mentioned or even suggested that any Islamic scholar ever spoke of the permissibility of liwat (anal sex), at least in this life (dunya - but that's another topic).

[edit] Tags

WTF? Where the hell are the sources to back up the large claims this article is making? Doesn't anyone know how to write a NPOV and balanced article anymore? "The Turk's sexual practices.." what Turk? Who is this guy? The whole 20 million of them? Some of them? Few of them? The only source that I can find is for how a Persian loanword got borrowed by Greek language! Is that it? Who the hell is writing these articles without bringing in the f#?&! sources? I will delete all that section per Wiki policy if references are not found. I will also take a look at the rest of the article as well..Baristarim 11:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


I am seconding that as well. Just because references mention Persian, Arab, Indiano-Pakistani historical documents or poems or whatever doesn't mean that this article should be labelled "Pedersaty in the Muslim world". It shows lack of historical as well as geographical knowledge. If this article would continue carrying this title, we might as well write another discussing Pedersaty in England, France, Sweden and Italy..etc and name it "Pedersaty in the Christian world".. (instead of Europe) Shouldn't classifying this area as "Middle East" be more geographically correct.. If such a practice was indeed established BEFORE this part of the world became Muslim, i wonder what such a title means..

[edit] translation issues

On this removed text: "translation is wrong and twisted. The english translation of the Qur'an says: "Round about them will serve, (devoted) to them, young male servants (handsome) as Pearls well-guarded" (52:24); " Round about them shall go youths never altering in age" (56:17); "And round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness): If thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered Pearls." (76:19). Secondly, Islamic jurisprudence does not consider an attraction towards beautiufl youths as normal. It considers it as unnatural and the evidence is that if it was natural than Islam would have allowed homosexuality. However Islam is stanchly agianst the practices of homosexuality and considers it among the major sins."

Thank you for your contribution. The quotes from the Qur'an are useful (it would be even better if you could indicate which translation you used and why) but as far as what Islam considers natural and unnatural, it is ubnah that is thought to be unnatural, not love. Assalam. Haiduc 02:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Pederasty in the Middle East name change

The name of the article was changed 12 March 2007:

moved 'Pederasty in the Muslim world' to 'Pederasty in the Middle East': A more accurate name, geographically and historically speaking.

There is nothing on the discussion page about the move (it was moved to Pederasty in the Middle East and Central Asia a little later also without any discussion.

Is there any information on Jewish, or Christian, or any non-Muslim pederasty in the article? All the information I see is on Muslims. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The only work on Jewish pederasty that I am aware of involves the Moorish culture in Andalusia before 1492. No studies on Jewish pederasty in the area under discussion here, with the exception of Jews as sex workers in Central Asia (see Baccha). Haiduc (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
A user has requested comment on society (including sport, law or sex) for this section.
This tag will automatically place the page on the {{RFCsoc list}}.

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list.


[edit] Proposed name change

Since the article includes nothing about non-Muslim pederasty, I propose the name be changed back to Pederasty in the Muslim world or something similar (i.e. something including the world Muslim or Islam/Islamic) to avoid confusion. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. The Muslim world includes half of Africa as well as large parts of southeast Asia which are not in this article. I'm a big opponent of unnecessarily generalizing titles. For example we don't call "biology" as simply "science". Besides the influence seem to have more to do with the region and culture, than religion.Bless sins (talk) 17:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I disagree. I don't think it's a fair comparison to turn this into a Muslim/non-Muslim thing. Few sources actually associate the practice with Islam - it appears to be more of a cultural aspect. Sources note historical pederasty in other areas too (i.e. far east, Australasia, Africa) - it would be unfair to give it a religious connotation just because any particular religion (i.e. Christianity) was prominent in that area. A more neutral presentation is from a geographical perspective, which is what the article currently employs. ITAQALLAH 17:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The article would not be titled Pederasty everywhere in the Muslim world, it would be Pederasty in the Muslim world (or something similar). The sections are on Middle East Persia, The Ottoman Empire, Central Asia, Mughal India, Sufis. There are numerous mentions of Islam Muslims Quran and none of non-Muslims (except how Western Christians disapprove of the Muslim Pederasty). In short, the article was called Pederasty in the Muslim world until a little more than a year ago and is about that subject. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure where I stand on this, but I will throw out some ideas. First of all, we do not have an article "Pederasty in the Christian world" though certainly such an article could be written and could be objective. Also, there is nothing intrinsically Islamic about pederasty in the Muslim world, though that too could be argued both ways, as people have, by pointing out the promised beautiful boys in paradise. There is not need to presume sexual relations with them since it is sufficient for their beauty to give pleasure for the relationship to be erotic. Another problem with the title as it stands is that it leaves out Andalusia, an important way-station in the history of pederasty in Islamic culture, and may or may not be appropriate for the Maghreb, a focal point of pederastic experience. Haiduc (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)